I'm a known Obama supporter on here. I also have a long standing belief that gun control legislation usually doesn't work and besides...and this is not a small thing in the discussion..........the constitution is clear, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Thats why even though I don't own guns or hunt that I've been a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear.

I understand that the constitution is also very clear on free speech but we restrict free speech in some circumstances (libel, yelling fire etc.). Thats the test that I've always used in evaluating any gun control legislation. If we allow and support the real ugly and reprehensible parts of free speech such as the Nazi's marching in a Jewish neighborhood then the Democrats must do the same with allowing gun owners that freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Republicans have to be open to some limitations on gun control along the same lines as the limits we put on free speech.

The compromise:

Forbid the mentally ill to own guns of any kind.

Forbid those who have been found guilty of violence against fellow citizens from owning guns.

Make illegal the purchase and ownership of armor piercing bullets.

Make illegal any ammunition clips greater than 10 rounds. (Exception could be in place for gun ranges)

Make laws that punish gun owners if their own registered guns are used to commit crimes.

Closing the gun show loophole.

#1 and #2 are easy. No one should be against those proposals.
#3 There is no need reason for an individual citizen to own armor piercing bullets.
#4 This is the key. The Ft. Hood, Va. tech, Gabby Giffords shooter were all stopped when their ammo clips ran out and they stop to reload. We can limit the body count if they have to stop to reload a clip even if it takes only 3-5 seconds.
#5 Gun owners should already be securing their firearms so that kids, mentally ill, suicidal people don't have access to their guns. This would have prevented Shady Hook.
#6 You buy a gun at your local shop they perform a background check but buy at a gun show they don't? Thats idiotic. If there is a background check, it applies to gun shows.

What got left off the table:

Assault weapons ban. It was already in effect for 10 years. It didn't lower crime. It doesn't meet the first amendment Nazi's marching test. The constitution is about the rights to own guns, not how many bullets that gun can fire.

Misplaced vote, it is flat out no with the round capacity bullshit. The rest doesn't bother me, it will do zero to prevent anything but if it would satisfy the anti gun crowd so be it~

__________________“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg~

How do you forbid someone who suffers from, but hasn't been diagnosed as "mentally ill" from purchasing a gun?

What is the threshold for "mentally ill" and who defines it? Would someone who is paranoid that the government is going to take over their freedoms if they don't have their military grade guns/weapons qualify as mentally ill? It certainly does in my book. I consider that delusional thinking.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 25% of adults live with some type of mental illness and that 50% of the US population has a mental illness at some point in their life.

Does your proposal also mean that if someone in your household or family have a mental illness that you are prevented from having a gun as well? Remember, other members in your household will have access to the guns even if you aren't mentally ill. The Sandy Point shooter was mentally ill, his mother wasn't; he shot up the school with her guns--access to those guns would be totally legal under your proposal.

Finally, the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent at all. In my estimation, stripping a person of their 4th Amendment Right to due process is far worse than stripping people of their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

I chose to reply to this post since it articulated the issue most clearly. If drawn vaguely, what you say is true, simply saying "mentally ill" causes several problems. Chief among these is that people seeking mental health counseling for nonviolent issues may be unfairly swept up. More importantly, they may intentionally avoid such counseling because it will affect their gun rights.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, there are many states that have related laws already on the books. Most of these ate drawn a bit more narrowly than the OP. In KS for instance, the rule is that if you are "adjudicated mentally incomptent" that you may not possess a firearm. That's obviously a much more enforceable version.

#2 is a little vague as well. While I think everyone would agree that people who do a drive by shooting should be prohibited, does "crime of violence" include a guy in a bar fight? Currently federal rules include domestic battery. These are probably tougher places to draw the line, but that doesn't mean you can't draw it.

So I don't buy we need guns to protect us from tyranny. I can get on board with we need guns to protect my family from bad guys.

You are contradicting yourself. The "bad guys" includes tyrants by definition. BTW, my argument against tyranny and for liberty is the exact same reason as our Founders.
I guess you just don't like the reason the 2nd Amendment was written.